In an effort to reduce erroneous entries, the open-source encyclopedia will prohibit anonymous users from creating articles.Wikipedia changed its article creation and editing rules today following two high-profile incidents in which anonymous users inserted erroneous information into entries.
To avoid future problems, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales will bar anonymous users from creating new articles.
"I would not call this a change of editorial policy," Wales said. "It is a routine sort of change to a very technical detail of the Web site, done as an experiment. It is not materially different from changes that we make all the time."
Nevertheless, the change is a departure from Wikipedia's commitment to complete openness.
Click here to read more about recent criticisms of Wikipedia.
What's more, the incidents give more ammunition to critics who argue that the online encyclopedia, which offers nearly 850,000 English articles and lets anyone create and edit entries, has no accountability and is not a serious information source.
The first incident was publicized on Nov. 29 when USA Today published an editorial by John Seigenthaler, a former aide to Robert Kennedy. Seigenthaler said that for 132 days, the Wikipedia entry under his name falsely accused him of being a suspect in Kennedy's assassination.
Two days later, a Wikipedia contributor caught former MTV VJ and Podcasting pioneer Adam Curry anonymously removing people from an article on Podcasting while magnifying his own role in the development of the technology.
Curry has publicly refuted such claims and said he was only trying to ensure that the article correctly portrayed the history of Podcasting.
Analysts say the Curry incident, while damaging to the former VJ's reputation, is actually a reaffirmation of how Wikipedia works.
"Curry was actually caught, that's the point," said David Card, senior analyst with Jupiter Research of Jupitermedia Corp. "But I mean, who cares? It's Adam Curry."
But Seigenthaler's experience is much more telling of Wikipedia's weaknesses. Seigenthaler argues that the open system allows contributors to post false or malicious information and does not hold them accountable.
Wikipedia's operating procedure was created to minimize the chances of a case like Seigenthaler's. When Wikipedia articles are first published, they appear on a review page where volunteers monitor entries in their areas of interest.
That system may in itself be part of the problem.
"The question a wiki asks is not who knows, but who cares," Shirky said, referring to the possibility that few contributors had a personal or professional stake in the accuracy of Seigenthaler's entry.
Read more here about how Wikipedia tests the limits of user-generated content.
According to Wales, the errors on Seigenthaler's page probably went undiscovered for so long because the page wasn't interlinked with other Wikipedia articles, depriving it of traffic that might have drawn closer scrutiny.
Both Wales and analysts expressed surprise that the entry went undiscovered for so long. Volunteers are typically wary of anonymous contributions, and often regard their articles with more suspicion than those by a named author, according to several contributors.
"Wikipedia exists at the forefront of the tension between the value and danger of openness," writer and consultant Clay Shirky said. "There's no good answer to these problems, unfortunately."
One possible approach for Wikipedia is to establish a named moderation system, much like the system employed by Slashdot.
"I have yet to see a solution to these problems other than hiring professional editors," Card said. "But I look forward to seeing what kind of solutions the community comes up with. Because that's what it is, right? A community. It's not the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and isn't meant to be."
Online Media 
